United Palace of Cultural Arts

4140 Broadway,
New York, NY 10033

Unfavorite 33 people favorited this theater

Showing 126 - 150 of 238 comments

Bway
Bway on April 21, 2008 at 7:17 am

I didn’t say they would go to cinematreasures. I said they would be searching for the the United Palace Theater on ticketmaster (or wherever). That is because that is the CURRENT name of the theater. You misunderstood why I mentioned that. I meant it that they wouldn’t be searching ticketmaster under “175th St Theater”, which is NOT the current operating name of this theater. This website, in most of my experience here (unless you can point me to some theater that this isn’t true) uses the CURRENT name as the title, which is the United Palace Theatre.

But that all an aside, at the very least, “United Palace Theatre” should be an aka name here. As that IS the current name for the THEATER operation of this building.

Bway
Bway on April 20, 2008 at 8:34 pm

And by the way, while yes, it is not used particularly often as a concert venue, it does have some events scheduled according to Ticketmaster:

View link

And also according to the link Al posted a few posts up:

View link

Someone searching for those tickets at this venue wouldn’t be able to seach for them looking at the “175th St Theater”, as it hasn’t existed in almost 40 years. But would find them under the United Palace Theater, the name of the theater the concerts play at.

Bway
Bway on April 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Howard. No offence, but what the heck is “Get a life”. Why would you even say something like that? Where have I gotten “out of line”? By having “the nerve” to suggest that a theater name may need to be changed on a website? All I was suggesting is an observation about a name of a theater, and how it’s listed on the site, perhaps (or perhaps not) against the policy of how names are listed by current use. I am afraid YOU should get a life if you can’t handle an adult conversation/debate on it. At least Warren respectfully disagreed with me.

“Get a Life”? Is that necessary? The nerve of me to to suggest such a thing. Geesh.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 20, 2008 at 9:45 am

Bway, get a life.

so far as I know, there have only been a few concerts here, and only recently,and when I visit official website, there are none listed for 2008 at all. It is primarily a church.

Bway
Bway on April 20, 2008 at 9:03 am

Al, you are correct. Most people outside regulars of this site or in the “theater world” would even know the church has once been called the Loews 175th St.
The OFFICIAL policy of this site is to have the main name of any particular theater as the CURRENT name of the theater. This theater is called the “United Palace Theatre”. If you are looking to buy tickets for a “Van Morrison” concert on Ticketmaster at this theater, you are searching the UNITED PALACE THEATRE, not the Loews 175th St. It doesn’t matter if it is mostly a church, which is true, but the fact remains that it is no longer ONLY a church. The theater IS used as a theater in addition to a church. This is not like the Loews Valencia which is rightly still called the Valencia as the main name on this site, as it is ONLY a church. The “Tabernacle of Prayer” is NOT used as a theater, and only for a church, so Valencia’s name remains, just as you would not call the old Oriental Theater in Boro Park “Marshalls”, as it’s not used as theater. The 175th St IS used as a theater, even if not as regularly as a church. The place IS a concert venue, and IS open to the public not attending church services.
Yes, this theater is more significant than the Blender Theater (Grammercy Theater), or the Nokia Times Square Theater (Astor Plaza Theater), however, both those theaters lost their former theater names and use the concert venue names instead, as THAT is the official POLICY of the site, so they were rightfully changed.
This theater not only should have the United Palace Theatre name, as that is the official CURRENT name of this venue, it doesn’t even make mention of the CURRENT name as an aka name. Like it or not, THAT is the name of this theater, not the 175th St Theater, which hasn’t existed in name in almost 40 years.

Other examples would be performing arts theaters. The REGENT theater in Bay Shore is listed as the Boulton Center for the Performing Arts, as THAT is the current name of the place. There are many such situations.

I know the 175th St Theater is more significant than many others, however, what theaters are given an exception to the “current name” policy? How many theaters are named by their former names instead of their current name, and which are they?

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on April 18, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Isn’t it more plausible that someone who saw a concert at the United Palace Theatre today would be trying to find out about it and rather less likely that someone would be looking for a movie theatre that closed 38 year ago?

Ziggy
Ziggy on April 18, 2008 at 1:46 pm

It makes no difference to those of us who know our way around this website, but for a newcomer it would be confusing. If one types in “Loew’s Paradise” for example, you are informed that there’s no match found, because it’s now listed as Utopia’s Paradise (a laughably stupid name by the way. It’s like saying “paradise’s paradise”). Someone coming here looking for info about Loew’s 175th Street Theatre might experience the same thing because they may never have heard of the United Palace. If there was some way that the search could also search through the aka’s that would solve the potential problem.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on April 17, 2008 at 8:44 pm

I agree. Screw history.

How do people find it today?

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Okay, I guess I understand the point, even though it seems to be a little contrary and inconsistent with what has happened with other theaters regarding current vs. former names.
But should the “United Palace Theatre” at least be used as an “aka” name?

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 17, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I sent in the name change for the Gramercy, because that was a total change in the name of the theater. I agree with Warren for the various reasons he posted above. The website link is included above for those who wish to visit it- and it is a very nice website with many beautiful photos of the movie palace. Most people on this website are more familiar with the historic name.

The status was changed today to “open” pursuant to the comment suggesting it.

I will also add gratitude to the church for keeping the movie palace in such wonderful order, and making it so available to the public.

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 9:58 am

By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that the 175th St Theater was less significant than the old Astor Plaza (Nokia) or Grammercy Theater (Blender), those two sentences sort of give the wrong impression, I meant to say that many significiant Theaters use their current names on the site…then went on about Grammercy and Astor, I didn’t mean to imply that those are more or just as significant “cinema treasures”, just that those are two examples of theaters in general that are using their most recent names instead of their movie day names.

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 9:55 am

That’s the CURRENT name of the theater. I hate to lose the original name of this place too, but other just as significant theaters listed on this site, which are no longer showing movies, but still operating as theaters (even if only part time) are listed as their current names. I thought that was the policy of the website. Again, if you type “venues” at ticketmaster, this theater doesn’t come up as the “175th St Theatre”, it comes up as the “United Palace Theatre”:

View link

I agree, it is much more significant as the “175th St”, yet like other theaters that no longer show movies, but are concert halls, such as Nokia and Blender, they are listed as their current names.

Unfortunately for consistancy, it should show the current name. I mean again, for example, wasn’t the “Mayfair Theater” more significant when it operated as such, or later when it became the “Embassy 2,3,4”, yet it is listed as it’s most current (or in that case last operating name) name used.

Incidentally, from what I have read, the projection capabilities are also still intact at the 175th St-United Palace Theatre.

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 8:36 am

The “Nokia Theater Times Square” doesn’t show movies either anymore, yet that is the main name listed for the old Astor Plaza Theater.
/theaters/309

There are many all over the site named as their CURRENT name:
-the old Grammercy Theater, now the Blender Theater. Also doesn’t show movies under “Blender Theater”.
/theaters/6113/

Those are just two off the top of my head. There have to be countless more if we start looking for former theaters, now concert venues. All the concert bookings don’t call this place a “church”, they call it the United Palace Theatre.

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 6:27 am

Also, it’s status isn’t closed, as the building is not only being used as a church, it is also open for concerts as mentioned above.

Bway
Bway on April 17, 2008 at 6:27 am

I think this theater may have to be changed to “United Palace Theatre”. That is how it’s advertised in Concert Bookings. The place is still a church, but it is also used as a Theater/Concert venue too. Many famous performers have played here, such as the Black Crowes, Niel Young, Van Morrison, etc….

For example, that’s how ticketmaster calls the theater, and I have seen the “United Palace Theatre” name on other advertising for concerts too.

View link

I know it’s tough to lose the “real” name as the main theater name, but I think in the policy of the website, the 175th St Theater name may have to become the “aka” name, as the current name IS the “United Palace Theatre” for concert bookings, even though they just call it the Christ United Palace for the church.
Even the Astor Plaza Theater had to be changed to “Nokia Theater” when it became a concert venue. I know it’s not only a concert hall, but is still a church, but shouldn’t the name reflect the current theater name?

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on March 4, 2008 at 10:13 am

Warren, that’s a rude comment. I hope the Reverand, and his church, which have so magnficiently maintained this glorious movie palace and made it available (at tours, concerts, etc) for the public to see and enjoy, both live on for a long, long time. They deserve the gratitude of all fans of historic movie palaces.

evmovieguy
evmovieguy on December 16, 2007 at 12:07 am

The interior of this theater is one of the most amazing that I have ever seen. Just absolutely overwhelmingly beautiful. I was there tonight to see Neil Young. Unfortunately his show wasn’t as cool as the theater. And that’s coming from a hardcore Neil Young fan. It looks like they are now using this as a regular venue for concerts, and they should!! It’s just great that this place has been preserved as well as it has been. A really amazing piece of architecture.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on December 11, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I’ve toured this fantastic exotic movie palace.

Here’s more photos from CTA visit this year that I found on flickr.

Lobby
View link

more lobby or foyer View link

Altoblanco
Altoblanco on November 9, 2007 at 8:21 pm

After viewing all of the posted photographs, I can only begin to imagine the skill and craftsmanship [and patience] required to create such a space. This could never be duplicated today on such a grand scale. This is preservation at its finest.

It has been said that “God is in the details”. If that’s the case, then it should be no “wonder” why a church chose this magnificent structure as their home.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on November 8, 2007 at 9:20 am

Thanks, Ken. Interesting about the various colored lighting circuits behind the decorative side wall & ceiling panels in the auditorium to change atmosphere. I wonder if we’ll ever see those restored in our lifetime!

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on November 8, 2007 at 6:24 am

Dave-bronx, I wondered the same thing as I took those photos a couple of weeks back. Perhaps Warren knows the answer to that (in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer has already been posted on this page, somewhere above).

bruceanthony
bruceanthony on November 7, 2007 at 10:54 pm

It would be nice if they lit the blade with Palace which would work since it is the United Palace. Im glad this facility is being discovered again. It was fortunate that reverend Ike bought this theatre and preserved it as a church and is letting other use the theatre for other purposes. I was in the theatre in 2002 and thought it was in great shape. I was able to see all the Loew’s wonder theatre except the Paradise in the Bronx. There is only one wonder theatre left to be revived the Loew’s Kings in Brooklyn.brucec

dave-bronx™
dave-bronx™ on November 7, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Has that tower on the stagehouse always been there, or did the church add it? It may be enclosing the water tower. Obviously the cross and ersatz stained glass have been added, but the structure itself looks out of place, a different style than the rest of the building.